"Grog drag Anne back to his
cave but Grog afraid she not shut up."
Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
...and I'm already here anyway! Oh happy day...
Her erroneous writings on science (not to mention her downright ugliness regarding widowhood) makes me wonder if her politics are really correct. If she cannot even get statements of science correct, why should we believe anything else she has ever said. (Same logic as with Clinton's lying.)
You said: I know this may sound childish - and if so, I guess I have yet to evolve into an adult - but how much time have you spent looking at the fossil record? For that matter, who on FR has spent the most time looking at the fossil record?
***
Very good observation. This is a tactic usually associated with Jack Murtha and abortion supporters. One is not entitled to an opinion unless one has fought in a war (and even then Bob Dole was not allowed to have an opinion be heard) or are a woman who might be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I reject this sort of tactic as irrelevant. If Coulter is wrong about her references to the fossil record, point that out, but the truth of one's statements/opinions does not rest on whether one has personally reviewed the fossil record.
You said: Her erroneous writings on science (not to mention her downright ugliness regarding widowhood) makes me wonder if her politics are really correct. If she cannot even get statements of science correct, why should we believe anything else she has ever said. (Same logic as with Clinton's lying.)
***
Assuming her writings on science are erroneous, that does not make her a liar or untrustworthy (just as Bush is not untrustworthy if it turns out there were no WMDs in Iraq).
As for her "ugliness regarding widowhood," you should read what she said more carefully and reconsider your post. She spoke not of widowhood in general, or even of widowhood as a result of 9/11 terror, but of those who use (or allow to be used) their widowhood for political purposes, and appear to revel in the fame brought on by it. Applying your logic to your own post, no one should read what you say, but I will continue to do so.
Ok, I reread it. It's worse than I thought. I've always expected this from the Left; now such comments seem common on the right.
The difference is that Bush's WMD statements seem to have been based on observations but made in good faith. (It's not clear how such observations could be checked.) In no way can Coulter's comments on science have been made in good faith; she gets facts (not just opinions) wrong. It's not like there aren't thousands of people who could have proof-read her stuff.
False. Darwin's theory does not address the beginning of life on Earth (or anywhere else for that matter).
In other words, it has evolved without a "supreme being" having intervened. Now all the sudden that's a bad thing....
We could use Ann on the Cubs, she's a home run hitter.
This speaks directly to her ability to reason.
If she can't understand this, how can she understand the complexities of other issues?
There is more to the survival of a species than simple procreation. Procreation by itself will fail to insure the survival of the species if the offspring do not survive and thrive. The behaviour you suggest seems to be destructive to that end in the human species. The evidence is all around you.
Sorry, your typical evolutionist believes firmly in "natural selection", a clearly metaphysical phenomenon.
Darwin called his book Origin of Species for a reason.
Stars, planets and galaxies evolve, of course, but the word is used in a completely different sense. The Darwinian theory, which the original poster referenced, is limited strictly to biological processes.
I may not be stating my main point well.
The Law of Gravity states that a human body cannot walk on water. However, it does not say that a localized, temporary exception to this law has never occurred. Thus a Christian who believes in the Law of Gravity is still perfectly free to believe that Jesus walked on water. He did not violate the Law of Gravity, he made an exception to it.
Similarly the Theory of Evolution attempts to describe how species change and evolve into other species. It cannot say that there has never been "interference" in this process, by "gods," advanced lifeforms or other entities.
All science can do is say that it finds no evidence of such interference, and that such interference is not necessary to explain the facts around us.
In my opinion, which is generally not popular with either side, God can use the process of evolution to accomplish his Creation while at the same time guiding or making exceptions to the natural processes as He sees fit.
Hunh? What is this "natural processes" critter? Is that an identifiable and measurable process or substance?
Ann is turning into Lawrence Larry Mackay (from "Please Don't Eat the Dasies"), a critic who lets a good joke triumph over a correct review.
Please state one proof!!
View Replies
*click*
No replies.
As is all too often the case we find that this particular Universe has "values", e.g. Cosmological Constant, Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s, einstein's e=mc squared, and so forth.
Other "values" are not available although they must certainly exist under other conditions in other universes. Maybe even the speed of light changes. Randomness, if it were "real", would sometimes select for different values in those constants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.